Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : NT & Win98 on same HD/same partition?
Anyone know of any problems related to setting up a dual boot situation between Win98 and NT on the same HD using the same partition? What happens when you set up programs within NT that your using in Win98 considering both OS are on the same HD? As an example lets say you have Netscape installed within Win98 and you also install it within NT - both installs will default to the ProgramFiles\Netscape directory but if the Win98 ver install is already occupying that space will the NT install of Netscape corrupt the Win98 running of Netscape? I hope someone can make sense of what I am trying to ask! Thanks! ... BTW, can NT be uninstalled? how?
Bleeding Edge
03-28-1999, 12:18 AM
On the same same drive: Yes; on the same partition: No.
NT doesn't support Win95/98's FAT32.
The applications are seperate installations for reach.
ANTONIO E GUERRA
03-28-1999, 08:09 AM
You can install both in the same hard drive and even in the same partition but in different directories but make sure of the following:
(1) Create a fat 16 partition using Msdos. If you have a 6.4 gig hard drive, create a promary active partition (2.2 gig hard drive).
(2) Install windows 95 or 98 in he first primary active partition (2.2 gig);
(3) Run the installation process from winnt for example D:\i386\winnt /b;
(4) Nt setup will ask you where do you want to install the operating system. You can choose C> or format the rest of the hard drive and install on a new partition;
The system is very smooth.
Hope it helps you.
Bleeding Edge
03-28-1999, 09:42 AM
You defeat the purpose of Win95/98's Fat 32.
You also can't use NT's advanced file system NTFS.
Installing on the same partition is a DON'T.
You lose the use of the best file systems of both OS's. Doesn't make any sense to do it that way.
ANTONIO E GUERRA
03-28-1999, 05:10 PM
I am very sorry to disagree with you, Sir!
Bleeding Edge
03-28-1999, 06:19 PM
It's okay.
I just rather run NTFS instead of FAT16 and FAT32 rather than FAT16.
MudMan
03-30-1999, 03:06 PM
For a time I had Win95OSR2 and NT4.0 on the same drive and same partion. I remember it was dual booting. I installed NT after WIN95 and it worked. However I had only a 1 gig drive and that wasn't enough room to make it practical. I also had a FAT16 on one drive and a FAT32 on another HD on a WIN95 system once. It worked fine. Don't ask me how, though.
I have to agree with bleeding edge.You lose the best of both systems by installing on same partition.While you may disagree,and that is your right,have you ever ran it the way bleeding suggested?If you have not then you are only seeing one side of the picture.also fat16 cannot support any large drives 2.2gb or above so why waste your time?you also run corruption risks by using the same partition(just cause it has not happened does not mean it can't or won't)Also,it is a known fact that ntfs and fat32 are far superior to fat16.And why have little 2.1gb virtual drives scattered all over your machine?a 6.4 gb drive gives you 3 2.1gb drive partions and 1 100mb of wasted space.
[This message has been edited by ENVY (edited 03-30-99).]
ANTONIO E GUERRA
03-30-1999, 04:06 PM
Have you ever thought that there is one reason for everything? In my system, I use a dual boot because some limited applications don't run with windows nt. I have installed the Internet a very few others on Windows 95 and the rest in a windows nt.
After I installed Nt, I partitioned the rest of the 6.4 hard drive into an Ntfs partition. In that way I keep my critical files safe.
i am glad that you are so eager to defend your point, and I see yours also. But remember there is not only good recipe--there are many options in this business. i hope your recipe works as well as mine. By the way, I had used before what you proposed.
If I may say, i don't pretend to be an xpert in this website so don't feel attacked. Have a good day!
point well taken!I did not see any mention in previous post of your use of ntfs.I do know there is more than one way to do just about anything.I also know that your suggested setup works.I was just saying that the setup suggested by bleeding is the best as far as performance issues
Nathan
03-30-1999, 06:09 PM
Well Antonio, you know far more than me. As far as I'm concerned, you ARE ONE OF THE GURU'S around here. I'm new to this site, but not to forums like these. Thanks for telling me about this place. A lot of good people here post without the flames. We just come here to try and help others, right Antonio?
You've had that dual boot setup on your system for how many years? You told me but I forgot. If you say that's the way it can be done, then that's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks for everything, sir!!!
Bleeding Edge
03-30-1999, 08:05 PM
Thanks guys.
Nathan
03-30-1999, 10:40 PM
Hey, thank you. We are just trying to help out the best way we can. Don't mean to step on any toes here.
SysOpt.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.